They’re comparing apples to oranges, to save money. Women whose breast cancer was detected early enough to benefit from a lumpectomy had the same survival rate as women whose cancer was detected later and had to get a mastectomy.
If you’re diagnosed with cancer, you can either fight it or surrender to it. It makes no sense to tease it with a half assed approach to treatment.
When I was diagnosed with lung cancer, it took me no time at all to agree to have the lung removed. It would take me even less time to agree to part with my breasts. But that’s from the patient’s perspective. The insurance company would be thrilled if I had opted for a cheaper course.
As we descend deeper and deeper into socialized medicine, I see more and more studies claiming that early detection and aggressive treatment are a waste of money.
Angelina Jolie’s situation isn’t relevant to these results or to treatment plans for breast cancer. She didn’t have breast cancer.
Wait, all the “preventative” medicine that the libs forced “big healthcare” to pay for which led to increasing costs for everyone isn’t worth it?
Doubtful. The actual study has not been posted but the press articles suggest that is not the case. You are correct that early intervention is being downplayed, but early intervention has downsides, mainly surgical trauma. Some people do well (you appararently are one) and some do not after such trauma.
As one example I have seen many cases where "weight loss surgery" results heart failure down the road. Rearranging how the body functions has a major impact on the body. Breasts might appear optional but that's not what the body works.
As for the early versus late cancer, that is a whole nother debate and I don't think it applies to this study.